Secondary Navigation

Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

A land value tax would prompt property firms to actionLand that is earning would cover the land value tax and prevent house builders allowing land to sit idly

Message 1 of 28
, Nov 10, 2012

A land value tax would prompt property firms to action

Land that is earning would cover the land value tax and prevent house builders allowing land to sit idly on their books.

Treasury minister David Gauke is against conducting a study to examine the costs of implementing a land tax.

Dotted across the country is industrial land with nothing on it. Derelict or simply vacant, there is an empty space where once machines hummed.

Making use of land that has potential for housebuilding or a return to its former industrial purpose should be a priority for any government.

Yet at the moment landowners can sit happily on their inert patch of ground without any penalty.

It's the reason why all the big house builders can boast three or more years of land with planning permission and allow it to sit idly on their books.

Property companies, which rank second only to financial services firms in the list of Tory donors, are keen on incentives before they push ahead with building plans.

Tax breaks are a favourite. But in an age of austerity tax breaks are ruled out. So the government prefers ripping up planning rules as the next best incentive to get spades in the ground.

Experts have lined up to say that riding roughshod over local concerns is not the way to spur construction. And with plenty of planning permission under their belts, the big firms don't see it as an incentive. Bovis Homes went public with that view at the time of their six-month results.

Talk to them privately and they say the real reason is a lack of mortgage finance or commercial loans to back the construction of new homes.

This is where a land value tax becomes a sufficient stick to beat property firms into action. If the land is earning, then it will cover the tax and more, if there is nothing happening, the tax is a burden.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton wants the Treasury to conduct a feasibility study to examine the costs and administrative difficulty of implementing a land tax.

Treasury minister David Gauke says no. Bizarrely, he argues that among many reasons against one is that "an LVT would increase the tax on less productive sites, at a time when market conditions are making it difficult to bring land into more productive uses".

This is the same minister who will walk through the Aye lobby to vote in favour of a bill that rips up current planning laws in the name of bringing less productive sites into use.

Lucas is concerned that business rates and council tax are already flawed. Council tax is skewed towards the poorest, with a whole series of tax bands at the bottom end of the scale and none at the top end. A mansion tax goes a little way to addressing the imbalance, but is clumsy and easily avoided.

All governments have sidestepped a revaluation of council tax since its inception in 1993. The coalition has just delayed business rate revaluation beyond next year while it pushes through the planning changes.

So we shouldn't be surprised at the resistance from the Treasury towards a new tax, even if it rewards activity against inactivity.

Gauke is cautious when bold action is required. He has against him all the major thinktanks, which promote LVT as a cure-all for capitalism's ills. The OECD is in favour, the IMF is in favour. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is in favour. A report for the Treasury on tax reform, the Mirrlees report, said it couldn't see any fundamental problems, and that the benefits of the reform would justify significant adjustment costs, and therefore that "the case for a thorough official effort to design a workable system seems to us to be overwhelming".

An LVT would be an annual tax on land based on its market price. This doesn't move very much and with a tax in place would move even less. There is no speculation in land in the same way there is in property. Residential land could be excluded, but probably should be counted because it would provide sufficient revenues to allow cuts to income taxes.

On a broad level, one reason the west is in decline relates to its reliance on property wealth, much of it inactive and unproductive, to provide us with a high standard of living. What is clear after yet another property bubble has burst is that we all need to rely less on wealth for our standard of living and pension and more on our labours. The tax system should reward work (for those who can) and punish those who just sit on land and don't do anything with it.

The GMB union said the other day that local councils should be given the power to compulsory purchase the 173,276 holiday homes that are occupied for only a few weeks a year.

"A holiday home that is only used for a few weeks a year is very different to a holiday home that is occupied for most of the year in terms of its economic benefits to any locality," says the GMB.

But these powers are unnecessary if an LVT applies to the land. Your main home is worth owning because it is the base from which you earn a living, but a second home is, well, the tip of a large iceberg of unproductive land that should have a tax applied to it.

The losers will be commercial property developers who do little with their land. Any government that extended an LVT to cover residential housing would make the tax neutral when combined with cuts in other taxes. Even the losers, older people in bigger homes, can be exempted or enjoy transitional arrangements that delay tax payments until they move or die.

The Treasury needs to back a feasibility study. There is no reason to block the Lucas bill.

I m impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I ve said before, the U.S. is a wasteland. W

Message 2 of 28
, Nov 10, 2012

I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.

W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>
> A land value tax would prompt property firms to actionLand that is
> earning would cover the land value tax and prevent house builders
> allowing land to sit idly on their books.
> Treasury minister David Gauke is against conducting a study to examine
> the costs of implementing a land tax.
> Dotted across the country is industrial land with nothing on it.
> Derelict or simply vacant, there is an empty space where once machines
> hummed.Making use of land that has potential for housebuilding or a
> return to its former industrial purpose should be a priority for any
> government.
> Yet at the moment landowners can sit happily on their inert patch of
> ground without any penalty.
> It's the reason why all the big house builders can boast three or more
> years of land with planning permission and allow it to sit idly on their
> books.
> Property companies, which rank second only to financial services firms
> in the list of Tory donors, are keen on incentives before they push
> ahead with building plans.
> Tax breaks are a favourite. But in an age of austerity tax breaks are
> ruled out. So the government prefers ripping up planning rules as the
> next best incentive to get spades in the ground.
> Experts have lined up to say that riding roughshod over local concerns
> is not the way to spur construction. And with plenty of planning
> permission under their belts, the big firms don't see it as an
> incentive. Bovis Homes went public with that view at the time of their
> six-month results.
> Talk to them privately and they say the real reason is a lack of
> mortgage finance or commercial loans to back the construction of new
> homes.This is where a land value tax becomes a sufficient stick to beat
> property firms into action. If the land is earning, then it will cover
> the tax and more, if there is nothing happening, the tax is a burden.
> Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton wants the Treasury to conduct
> a feasibility study to examine the costs and administrative difficulty
> of implementing a land tax.
> Treasury minister David Gauke says no. Bizarrely, he argues that among
> many reasons against one is that "an LVT would increase the tax on less
> productive sites, at a time when market conditions are making it
> difficult to bring land into more productive uses".
> This is the same minister who will walk through the Aye lobby to vote in
> favour of a bill that rips up current planning laws in the name of
> bringing less productive sites into use.
> Lucas is concerned that business rates and council tax are already
> flawed. Council tax is skewed towards the poorest, with a whole series
> of tax bands at the bottom end of the scale and none at the top end. A
> mansion tax goes a little way to addressing the imbalance, but is clumsy
> and easily avoided.
> All governments have sidestepped a revaluation of council tax since its
> inception in 1993. The coalition has just delayed business rate
> revaluation beyond next year while it pushes through the planning
> changes.
> So we shouldn't be surprised at the resistance from the Treasury towards
> a new tax, even if it rewards activity against inactivity.
> Gauke is cautious when bold action is required. He has against him all
> the major thinktanks, which promote LVT as a cure-all for capitalism's
> ills. The OECD is in favour, the IMF is in favour. The Institute for
> Fiscal Studies is in favour. A report for the Treasury on tax reform,
> the Mirrlees report, said it couldn't see any fundamental problems, and
> that the benefits of the reform would justify significant adjustment
> costs, and therefore that "the case for a thorough official effort to
> design a workable system seems to us to be overwhelming".
> An LVT would be an annual tax on land based on its market price. This
> doesn't move very much and with a tax in place would move even less.
> There is no speculation in land in the same way there is in property.
> Residential land could be excluded, but probably should be counted
> because it would provide sufficient revenues to allow cuts to income
> taxes.
> On a broad level, one reason the west is in decline relates to its
> reliance on property wealth, much of it inactive and unproductive, to
> provide us with a high standard of living. What is clear after yet
> another property bubble has burst is that we all need to rely less on
> wealth for our standard of living and pension and more on our labours.
> The tax system should reward work (for those who can) and punish those
> who just sit on land and don't do anything with it.
> The GMB union said the other day that local councils should be given the
> power to compulsory purchase the 173,276 holiday homes that are occupied
> for only a few weeks a year.
> "A holiday home that is only used for a few weeks a year is very
> different to a holiday home that is occupied for most of the year in
> terms of its economic benefits to any locality," says the GMB.
> But these powers are unnecessary if an LVT applies to the land. Your
> main home is worth owning because it is the base from which you earn a
> living, but a second home is, well, the tip of a large iceberg of
> unproductive land that should have a tax applied to it.
> The losers will be commercial property developers who do little with
> their land. Any government that extended an LVT to cover residential
> housing would make the tax neutral when combined with cuts in other
> taxes. Even the losers, older people in bigger homes, can be exempted or
> enjoy transitional arrangements that delay tax payments until they move
> or die.
> The Treasury needs to back a feasibility study. There is no reason to
> block the Lucas bill.
> Link to page
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/08/land-value-tax?intcmp=23\
> 9>
>

JDKromkowski

... At the federal level, the problem is that no one remembers how to do an apportioned tax. The last lvt bill was in 1935, when there would have been at least

> And it does no good that most liberals think of the property tax as regressive.

Like other related lies, the lie that the property taxation is regressive is assiduously chanted by apologists for privilege. They can never defend it, but that doesn't prevent them from chanting it.

-- Roy Langston

jdkromkowski@gmail.com

Yeah we should note that every single state in the us has some form of property tax so some land value is being taxed. ... Date: Saturday, November 10, 2012

Message 6 of 28
, Nov 10, 2012

Yeah we should note that every single state in the us has some form of property tax so some land value is being taxed.
-----O everyriginal Message-----
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:07:40 pm
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
From: "John" <burns-john@...>
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
>
> I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
> occasional serious hearings in the UK.
> As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.

Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !

walto

... (a) Not really so many. A handful at most. (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement

>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get
> > occasional serious hearings in the UK.
> > As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
>
> Walto, the USA HAS LVT in many towns. The UK has ZERO !
>

(a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
(b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.

W

John

... Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.

But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole source in fact.

During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th century. And I don't believe that it was only coincidence that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example.

John

... to work. The UK has zero examples. ... implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole

Message 10 of 28
, Nov 11, 2012

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:

>> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:

> > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT

> > has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.

> > But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has

> never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the

> 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue.

> Almost the sole source in fact.

Derek, I am fully aware of that. I posted this about 3 months ago:

My sister has done research on this and has revealed that our ancestor, Sir John Miller owned the district of Islington in London from 1613. Islington is now a very expensive fashionable district just north of the financial district, The City of London.

He paid land tax...

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45434

"Islington pays the sum of 2001l. 11s. 9d. [£2,001] to the land-tax, which is at the rate of about 1s. 6d. in the pound."

Unfortunately his grandsons, etc, sold off parts of Islington after he died, not doing what the Grosvenor family (Duke of Westminster) did with their less valuable fields at Mayfair to the west of London. The Grosvenors did not sell their land and only leased taking in rent. Otherwise I might have been a Duke and one of the world's richest men. :-)

But the family goes on... a part of the Millers went to then British America and married into the Beck family. John Beck was in the Revolutionary war against the British commanding Fort Henry, at one time and also Fort Pitt which became Pittsburgh - you can blame me if you want Dan Sullivan! :-) . Beck is mentioned in American history. A part of the Becks/Millers returned to Britain, hence how I came about.

But the revolutionary war need never have come about if the British government had taken notice of Adam Smith. Smith said tax land values in the UK to reduce government debt and not the colonists I am not sure if he wanted to tax land in America as well. Then the war need never have occurred.... and a part of the family then would never have been a hero of the USA. :-)

> During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an

> army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and

> still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income

> tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th

> century.

Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars. The Tory party, party of the landowners, reintroduced it in 1842, as they kept pushing tax from rich landowners to the poor.

Initially it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.

It was no coincidence that as tax was gradually pushed from land to people's labour, the world dominating British economy gradually dwindled. OK, the rise of the USA, by seizing land and its resources to its west, and the creation of Germany as one state meant there was some strong competition as well.

How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the British did as they had no need to. The British moved, and lived, all over the world, because they never had access to cheap land to live on in the UK - they appropriated others land, or introduced an alien land system to them, but that is another point.

> And I don't believe that it was only coincidence

> that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion

> of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout

> the 19th and 20th centuries.

That is correct. Also, as Michael Hudson noted, the British had an obsession in rigging the free market to have cheap labour, which brought down its empire - well the empire faded and then was just given away. A similar thing happened with the Roman empire. Having cheap labour is ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.

> Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's

> dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty

> and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic

> growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success.

> And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in

> practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672,

> which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century,

> let alone the 19th.

Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was a success and should be used now. They laugh at you. Michael Hudson studied the ancient civilization's economies. Mention that they had a better base system and people laugh at you. People are brainwashed that as time went on we got things better all around - consumer goods, and cheap energy, gives them that impression. That is not the case with economics. In the UK, tell people it was better in the early 1800s and they point to Dickens.

> So, agreed that there are zero modern examples.

> But there is a huge historical example.

The example no one takes any notice of, as they think all was bad hundreds of years ago full of grovelling poverty. Pre the industrial revolution, the average British worker worked about 3.5 to days as he had no need to work flat out for 10 hours a day and 6 days a week, as was the case when the industrial revolution came. Many cursed the onset of mainly slave labour, the machines they never mined too much - Ned Ludd was one, who was hung.

BTW, when income tax was introduce we had schedule A, which a tax on land value. The Tory party, them again, got rid of it in 1964. Before 1964, house prices were pretty stable to today, Since schedule A went we have been perpetually short of homes and price have gone though the roof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#History

k_r_johansen

... You ve got council tax and the more LVT-like, but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest portion of govt. funded by property-related taxes in the OECD.

> Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
>

You've got council tax and the more LVT-like, but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest portion of govt. funded by property-related taxes in the OECD. I'll bet you'd notice if they were abolished.
Thanks for the swedish link btw, excellent!

Kj

John

... KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the

>
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
>
> > Walto, But even with such small
> > implementations, LVT has proven to
> > work. The UK has zero examples.
>
> You've got council tax and the more LVT-like,
> but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest
> portion of govt. funded by property-related
> taxes in the OECD.

KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the business premises, so more LVT like, but domestic Council tax and Business rates do take into account the building and only premises that are used. Vacant land is not taxed, so speculators can land bank and make a killing.

"Property-related" taxes can mean most of the buildings in an assessment. "Property" is the building and land together.

> Thanks for the swedish link btw, excellent!

No probs.

derekrss

... Sorry, John. I wasn t aware of that. Looks like I was trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs again. Cheers

>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
>
> > > Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT > > has proven
> to work. The UK has zero examples.
> >
> > But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has > never been
> implemented, the UK Land tax of the > 17th and 18th centuries was the
> major source of revenue. > Almost the sole source in fact.
> Derek, I am fully aware of that. I posted this about 3 months ago:
> My sister has done research on this and has revealed that our ancestor,
> Sir John Miller owned the district of Islington in London from 1613.
> Islington is now a very expensive fashionable district just north of the
> financial district, The City of London.
> He paid land
> tax...http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45434"Islingto\
> n pays the sum of 2001l. 11s. 9d. [£2,001] to the land-tax, which is
> at the rate of about 1s. 6d. in the pound.

Sorry, John. I wasn't aware of that. Looks like I was trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs again.

Cheers

roy_langston

... Nationmaster claims the UK gets more public revenue from property taxation than any other OECD country (which probably means more than any country, maybe

> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> >
> > > Walto, But even with such small
> > > implementations, LVT has proven to
> > > work. The UK has zero examples.
> >
> > You've got council tax and the more LVT-like,
> > but imperfect Business Rates, and the highest
> > portion of govt. funded by property-related
> > taxes in the OECD.
>
> KRJ, The UK does have indirect land taxation, so does property tax in any country. Business rates is based on an estimate of the annual rent of the business premises, so more LVT like, but domestic Council tax and Business rates do take into account the building and only premises that are used. Vacant land is not taxed, so speculators can land bank and make a killing.
>
> "Property-related" taxes can mean most of the buildings in an assessment. "Property" is the building and land together.

Nationmaster claims the UK gets more public revenue from property taxation than any other OECD country (which probably means more than any country, maybe excepting HK):

It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income from landed property. At that time in Britain, "income" meant passive ownership income, especially income from land and debt instruments, not earned income, which was called, "wages."

> Initially
> it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
> gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.

More accurately, onto the productive.

> How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it
> that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could
> make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap
> transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to
> land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the
> British did as they had no need to.

That's clearly false. The USA was right behind Britain in industrialization in the first half of the 19th C, and there was a superabundance of good land for the taking.

> Having cheap labour is
> ingrained in the management psyche in the UK.

But they are too stupid to figure out that you can't have cheap labor when labor has to support a large and exorbitantly parasitic landowning and debt-owning rentier class, as well as supporting government, the laborers themselves, and their families.

> Yes, the UK did have land tax. You try and tell people today that was a
> success and should be used now. They laugh at you.

Same in Japan, where the LVT was explicit, and paid for most public spending during the single generation when Japan grew from a poverty-stricken feudal backwater to a global economic, industrial and military power.

-- Roy Langston

derekrss

... I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan,

>
> I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
>

I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.

But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".

I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.

But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?

walto

... Yes, I think that s basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal

>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
> >
>
> I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
>
> But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
>
> I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
>
> But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
>

Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.

W

derekrss

... Understood, Walto. However when I type Democrats for LVT into Google, I get results about the Liberals in the UK. Even worse, typing Republicans for

>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
> > >
> >
> > I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
> >
> > But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
> >
> > I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
> >
> > But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
> >
>
> Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.
>

Understood, Walto. However when I type "Democrats for LVT" into Google, I get results about the Liberals in the UK. Even worse, typing "Republicans for LVT" doesn't return anything relevant or useful. So I wonder if there might still be a place for internal lobbying groups for each main US party at a national level. The national level may not be important for Federal taxation purposes but as a way of promoting LVT at the local level it is important because when it comes to political parties, the national level generally leads the local level.

On the Press side of things I don't know what to suggest. I suppose that the UK is just lucky to have a couple of national newspapers that are prepared to print favourable comment on LVT reasonably often. Luckily the Internet is making that less important than it used to be but it would be nice if the New York Times or US Today said something nice about LVT every month or two. Even every year or two would be an improvement!

John

... property. At that time in Britain, income meant passive ownership income, especially income from land and debt instruments, not earned income,

Message 19 of 28
, Nov 12, 2012

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:>> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:> > > Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.> > It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income

> from landed property. At that time in Britain, "income"

> meant passive ownership income, especially income

> from land and debt instruments, not earned income,

> which was called, "wages."

Correct. In 1842 it was also the case but income tax gradually fell on wages.

> > Initially> > it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to> > gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.> > More accurately, onto the productive.

...and poor. :)

> > How the industrial revolution came about is open to debate. Some view it> > that as people did not have land (or few did) the only way they could> > make it was be innovative - cheap energy, coal, helped, and later cheap> > transportation, the canals. In countries where the people had access to> > land and its resources they never went on an industrial binge like the> > British did as they had no need to.> > That's clearly false. The USA was right behind Britain in

> industrialization in the first half of the 19th C, and there

> was a superabundance of good land for the taking.

All other countries were way behind the UK in industrialization in the early 1800s. The USA came into it about mid-century based a lot on what the British had done. The steam engine, and its applications, was the key. The sheer innovation and production coming out of the UK was startling.

Look at what was happening in 1829 in Liverpool. The first ever tunnel bored under a metropolis - 1.24 miles long, when most other countries didn't even know what a train was.

>
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@ wrote:
> >
> > > Income Tax was a temporary tax to fund the Napoleonic wars.
> >
> > It also, originally, fell almost entirely on income > from landed
> property. At that time in Britain, "income" > meant passive ownership
> income, especially income > from land and debt instruments, not earned
> income, > which was called, "wages."
> Correct. In 1842 it was also the case but income tax gradually fell on
> wages.
>
> > > Initially
> > > it was only taxation for the rich, but they saw the opportunity to
> > > gradually push all taxes from landowners onto the poor.
> >
> > More accurately, onto the productive.
> ...and poor. :)

I agree with Roy that it's important to be clear and accurate. Too many confusions of thought arise from imprecise usage of language. I've noticed a lot of people with a strong sense of social justice, who in all rights should be our allies, oppose the LVT fiercely, due to their belief that it doesn't "tax the rich" enough. They confuse cause and effect, and do so mostly, I think, due to confusions of terms.

If you did a venn diagram, "poor" and "productive" would be circles with massive overlap; in fact, that's an idea that we should try to get people to understand, as there's much conventional wisdom that the rich are productive, and the poor are leaches. That said, large overlap between the two classes does not make them one in the same.

The productive poor are poor because our tax system doesn't make sense. They're not penalized for being poor, they're penalized for being productive.

John David Kromkowski

Derrekrss: Now granted, it wasn t all roses. The absence of a citizen s dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant.

Message 21 of 28
, Nov 12, 2012

Derrekrss: "Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example."

JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality. So if there really was LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality". I'd have to say that LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.

The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound. At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education. But CD is not a necessary thing to do that. Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too. Even work week hour laws will do that.

> > (a) Not really so many. A handful at most.
> > (b) Those paltry few that do have them, generally just have a somewhat higher land tax rate than improvement tax rate: that isn't actually LVT, though it's better than nothing.
> >
>
> Walto, But even with such small implementations, LVT has proven to work. The UK has zero examples.
>
But it does have history, John. While pure LVT has never been implemented, the UK Land tax of the 17th and 18th centuries was the major source of revenue. Almost the sole source in fact.

During those years Britain used the revenue to fund an army and a navy, build an Empire, defeat Napoleon and still managed to kickstart the Industrial Revolution. Income tax only started to replace the Land tax in the early 19th century. And I don't believe that it was only coincidence that Britain's industrial edge faded as the proportion of tax shifted from land to income and sales throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672, which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the 19th.

So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge historical example.

-- Very truly yours

John D. Kromkowski6803 York Road -- Suite 207Baltimore, MD 21212

Tel 410-377-6248Fax 410-372-0624Mobile 443-271-0500

This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.

roy_langston

... No. Removal of people s rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries,

> JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
> taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.

No. Removal of people's rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, where the occasional "rentier behavior" by self-seeking bureaucrats was overshadowed by other government policies. The transfer of people's right to liberty to a privileged landowning rentier class, as in Britain, is the principal cause of inequality.

> So if there really was
> LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality".

No, because Britain's LVT only redressed ONE side of the injustice of the enclosures. This is the key point I have been trying to explain, and shows why a UIE (or, second best, a CD) is necessary. Before the enclosures, most people had a right to use land: the village commons. With the enclosures, that right was forcibly removed and transferred to wealthy, privileged landowners. LVT removed part of the privilege enjoyed by landowners, but did nothing to restore the liberty right of the landless or justly compensate them for its removal.

> LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
> land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.

Not really. The rich, powerful and greedy could no longer pocket enough land rent to slake their greed at home, and so sought it abroad using their influence in government to enlist the aid of the Royal Navy -- and army regiments swelled by young men dispossessed, by the enclosures, of their opportunities to earn a livelihood without supporting a parasitic landlord.

> The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.

?? HUH?? You've just claimed LVT was a failure in Britain because it didn't SOLVE poverty and inequality, right after Derek pointed out that the lack of a UIE (or, second best, a CD) in Britain was the REASON it didn't solve them! Talk about refusal to know!

> At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
> work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.

False. It would often make the difference between being able to afford the necessities of a decent life above the poverty line while working full time and not being able to afford them. It would also often make the difference between having to offer your labor to an employer immediately, on unfavorable terms, just to stay alive, and being able to hold out for a better situation or better terms. You clearly are not close to understanding the far-reaching implications of the dispossession of people's right to liberty, or its restoration.

> But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.

Right. But a UIE (or second best, a CD) is.

> Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too.

No, it would not, as already explained, and as proved by the socialist historical examples. In the absence of a UIE (or, second best, a CD), the burden of having to pay rent for access to opportunity consigns the least productive to poverty, no matter how much progress there is, or how little rent the landowning class pockets.

> Even work week hour laws will do that.

No, they will not, as already explained.

-- Roy Langston

jdk_maryland_atty

There is another alternative. I.e., that there really wasn t land value tax going on in Britain. Or even that LVT really only becomes necessary when society

Message 23 of 28
, Nov 12, 2012

There is another alternative. I.e., that there really wasn't land value tax going on in Britain. Or even that LVT really only becomes necessary when society shifts from Rural and Agragrian to Urban and Industrial.

So, what is purported to be a historical example of LVT is not actually a historical example of LVT!

Unless the tax was high enough to make the landed aristocrat break up the land and give it back to the people, then it really isn't LVT and most importantly because royalty (the Crown) was exempt from the LVT and but also controlled most of the land, it really wasn't lvt at all.

What the Soviets and the Party were were just new parasitic rentierists, themselves. I.e. the party became the new royalty and were equavalent to the Crown with respect to land (and worse with respect to "rights" of people - i.e. no Magna Carta)

In a transparent and free democracy, the UIE would be great but is not necessary if there really is LVT on all land. The CD is neither necessary nor such a great idea and it in any case is no way dependent upon LVT, because it can be funded all kinds of different and not so good taxes.

JDK

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
>
> > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
> > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.
>
> No. Removal of people's rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, where the occasional "rentier behavior" by self-seeking bureaucrats was overshadowed by other government policies. The transfer of people's right to liberty to a privileged landowning rentier class, as in Britain, is the principal cause of inequality.
>
> > So if there really was
> > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality".
>
> No, because Britain's LVT only redressed ONE side of the injustice of the enclosures. This is the key point I have been trying to explain, and shows why a UIE (or, second best, a CD) is necessary. Before the enclosures, most people had a right to use land: the village commons. With the enclosures, that right was forcibly removed and transferred to wealthy, privileged landowners. LVT removed part of the privilege enjoyed by landowners, but did nothing to restore the liberty right of the landless or justly compensate them for its removal.
>
> > LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
> > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.
>
> Not really. The rich, powerful and greedy could no longer pocket enough land rent to slake their greed at home, and so sought it abroad using their influence in government to enlist the aid of the Royal Navy -- and army regiments swelled by young men dispossessed, by the enclosures, of their opportunities to earn a livelihood without supporting a parasitic landlord.
>
> > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.
>
> ?? HUH?? You've just claimed LVT was a failure in Britain because it didn't SOLVE poverty and inequality, right after Derek pointed out that the lack of a UIE (or, second best, a CD) in Britain was the REASON it didn't solve them! Talk about refusal to know!
>
> > At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
> > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.
>
> False. It would often make the difference between being able to afford the necessities of a decent life above the poverty line while working full time and not being able to afford them. It would also often make the difference between having to offer your labor to an employer immediately, on unfavorable terms, just to stay alive, and being able to hold out for a better situation or better terms. You clearly are not close to understanding the far-reaching implications of the dispossession of people's right to liberty, or its restoration.
>
> > But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.
>
> Right. But a UIE (or second best, a CD) is.
>
> > Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too.
>
> No, it would not, as already explained, and as proved by the socialist historical examples. In the absence of a UIE (or, second best, a CD), the burden of having to pay rent for access to opportunity consigns the least productive to poverty, no matter how much progress there is, or how little rent the landowning class pockets.
>
> > Even work week hour laws will do that.
>
> No, they will not, as already explained.
>
> -- Roy Langston
>

JDKromkowski

Part of the issue of lack of lvt talk at federal level in the US is our constitution requires that a land tax must be apportioned among the states . This is

Message 24 of 28
, Nov 12, 2012

Part of the issue of lack of lvt talk at federal level in the US is our constitution requires that a land tax must be "apportioned among the states". This is really not that complicated BUT there is no institutional memory of exactly how to do this, because it hasn't been done in like 175 years.

The last lvt bill was introduced in 1935 by a PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz. His bill was a tax on all land valued more than 3000. Never made it out of committee. It is pretty clear from the language that even he didn't understand how to write an apportioned tax bill. He was already a generation beyond George's son who was in congress and did probably understand how an apportioned land tax would work, but he along with progressives thought the 16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.

The second is problem is that in the 60s with guys like romney's father and culminating in prop 13 created this whole anti property tax mantra that it hurt the middle class home owner and was not progressive. And dems bought into this idea and didn't want to be seen as pro any form of property tax. The history is longer and more nuanced but - in a nutshell.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
> >
>
> I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
>
> But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
>
> I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
>
> But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
>

Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.

___Jdk___
PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
-----

Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?

derekrss

... It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay

>
> Derrekrss: "Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's
> dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality
> was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation
> was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too
> far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672,
> which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the
> 19th.
>
> So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge
> historical example."
>
> JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
> taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier
> behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality. So if there really was
> LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality". I'd
> have to say that LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
> land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.
>
> The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is
> really not sound. At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
> work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and
> education. But CD is not a necessary thing to do that. Progress
> unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that
> too. Even work week hour laws will do that.
>

It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay large salaries to a few thousand politicians, civil servants and military officers, there is little difference in its effect from using rent to pay a few thousand landlords. If the revenue is set high and used to pay a low wage to an army of soldiers consisting of half the able-bodied population, there is little difference from LVT plus a CD, (except that it ties up half the A-B population in unproductive labour). The first option will encourage growth to some extent but won't do much to touch inequality. The second option will give near-equality but poverty will be widespread because of the lack of productive work being done.

In the case of the 18th century United Kingdom, we can certainly point at the economic growth effects of the LVT-like land tax but the tax was never at a high enough level to change the income distribution much. Also no revaluation was done after the initial valuation of 1672. Moreover when UK government spending at the end of the Napoleonic wars approached a figure which could have justified a land tax level high enough to make a difference to inequality, the landowners in Parliament baulked at paying and so we got Peel's income tax when revaluation plus a higher land tax rate would have been the better solution to fix the revenue shortfall.

John David Kromkowski

You are incorrect. The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax income from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment. There was

Message 27 of 28
, Nov 13, 2012

You are incorrect.

The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax "income" from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment. There was an income tax on wages in the civil war. This is because taxing wages is an "indirect" tax because it is a tax on the transaction of getting paid for labor.

For the non-US and may some of the US, an apportioned tax is required for "direct" taxes. Apportionment means that each state covers a portion of the revenue to be raised in proportion to its population. So a state with 10% of the population comes up with the 10% of the revenue.

There are basically only two types of taxes that are "direct" are a capitation (tax on being a person, a head tax) and a tax on Land (The SCt again noted this in dicta in the Health Care Act case. A tax on land is a direct tax and must be apportioned.)

If you are really interested in this topic. I'd suggest reading these cases in this order

___Jdk___PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto onlyapplied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because thosewere considered incidences of property ownership and thus need tobe apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.-----SB:Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. Itapplies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may havebeen considered federal income as some sort of privilege?

___Jdk___
PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
-----

Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?

-- Very truly yours

John D. Kromkowski6803 York Road -- Suite 207Baltimore, MD 21212

Tel 410-377-6248Fax 410-372-0624Mobile 443-271-0500

This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.